Wednesday, April 18, 2012

California's AB 2109, Strengthening School-Entry Vaccination Requirements, A Mild Change

Currently in California, it is cheaper and easier to get an exemption from vaccine requirements for school entry than it is to actually comply with the requirements. 
Now Assemblymember Richard Pan (D 5th District), also a physician, is planning to change that.  He has introduced AB 2109. (As of March 24, the bill is still in the Assembly Health Committee.) The change in the law is pretty mild.  Vincent Iannelli MD summarizes the change:
Instead of simply signing a personal belief vaccine exemption form on their own, parents will be required to have a written statement signed by a [licensed] health practitioner that says the parent was given information about the benefits and risks of immunizations and the risks of certain vaccine-preventable diseases.
The provisions of AB 2109 are much milder than the recommendations from the The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society ( Download Pediatric_infectious_disease_soc_vaccine_exemptions).  I've excerpted part of the Position Statement below, and added emphasis
Position Statement Regarding Personal Belief Exemption from Immunization Mandates from The Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society March 2011
It is recognized that in some states, failure to pass personal belief exemption legislation or regulation could result in public backlash that will erode support for immunization mandates. If legislation or regulation is being considered in this situation, it should contain the following provisions, which are intended to minimize use of exemptions as the “path of least resistance” for children who are behind on immunizations (whereby it would be easier to obtain an exemption than to catch-up the child’s immunizations):
  • The personal belief against immunization must be sincere and firmly held.
  • Before a child is granted an exemption, the parents or guardians must receive state-approved counseling that delineates the personal and public health importance of immunization, the scientific basis for safety of vaccines, and the consequences of exemption for their child as well as other children in the community who are vulnerable to disease and cannot otherwise be protected.
  • Before a child is granted an exemption, the parents or guardians must sign a statement that delineates the basis, strength, and duration of their belief; their understanding of the risks that refusal to immunize has on their child’s health and the health of others (including the potential for serious illness or death); and their acknowledgement that they are making the decision not to vaccinate on behalf of their child.
  • Parents and guardians who claim exemptions should be required to revisit the decision annually with a state-approved counselor and should be required to sign a statement each year to renew the exemption.
  • Children should be barred from school attendance and other group activities if there is an outbreak of a disease that is preventable by a vaccination from which they have been exempted. Parents and guardians who claim exemptions for their children should acknowledge in writing their understanding that this will occur.
  • States that adopt provisions for personal belief exemptions should track exemption rates and periodically reassess the impact that exemptions may have on disease rates.
Despite the relative mildness of AB 2109, both in-state and out-of-state anti-vaccine activists are opposing the bill.

Current status of the bill:

  • Passed the Health Committee 
  • Next: Appropriations Committee (not yet scheduled)

3 comments:

  1. DISGUSTING! A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST! THE CREATOR OF THIS BILL STANDS TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY IF THIS PASSES AND YOUR PARENTAL RIGHTS ARE AT STAKE. THIS IS AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT GETS. PARENTS DON'T NEED TO GO TO A DOCTOR TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEIR CHILDREN!!!! THE DOCTOR IS NOT THE PARENT! AND DOCTORS ARE CLUELESS ABOUT VACCINES! THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE INGREDIENTS AND YET THEY WANT YOU TO PUMP YOUR CHILDREN WITH NEUROTOXINS AND ABORTED FETAL TISSUES! IT'S VILE. PEOPLE NEED TO WAKE UP! THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTH THIS IS ABOUT CONTROL OVER EVERY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE AND THEM MAKING LOTS OF MONEY IN THE PROCESS.

    ReplyDelete
  2. CJ, hasn't anybody ever told you that typing in all caps is shouting (and rude)?

    On to your points: Dr. Pan, the author of this bill, is a pediatrician. If pediatricians were really interested in making money, they'd all be anti-vaccine. Sick children are a lot more profitable than vaccines, which usually are a cost to the practice rather than a source of profit.

    The two states that have eliminated philosophical or religious exemptions from vaccines have done so because it was found such exemptions are violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amentment -- in other words, the exemptions were found in law to violate the constitution.

    "Doctors are clueless about vaccines"-- citation needed.

    This bill does not take decision-making away from the parents in any way. It merely requires parents to hear accurate, factual information about vaccines (see your misinformation about neurotoxins and aborted fetal tissues). The parent remains free to refuse vaccines for their children and themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is no balance in the bill, the bill assumes vaccination efficacy. I would like to sit every vaccine nurse and paediatrician down and run the overwhelming evidence for vaccine disaster over them.

    In the UK in 2009 a Doctor Jayne Donagan was the expert witness in a case where two parents had divorced, one wanted vaccination and the other didnt.

    After months of critical review Jayne went against all her medical training by stating the facts. The current medical data from studies and trials for the current infant vaccine schedule in the UK was unable to provide any evidence whatsoever of vaccine efficacy for any vaccine at all!

    She lost the first round because the GMC called that on a technical point Jayne had not quoted the 'conclusions' of these trials but the raw data. (There in lies (sic) a point, we know that non disclosure is endemic in vaccination efficacy stats, Merck is up for this right now with 5 of its ex scientists over the mumps vaccine in the US.)

    Back to Jayne, however she won her case on appeal and the GMC (general medical council in the UK) was forced by the high court to accept the verdict and acknowledge that not only was Jaynes' evidence correct it was methodologically sound!

    So there is no need to be pro or anti vaxx any more, we can all come together and acknowledge the nightmare is over, there is no EBM for childhood vaccination and that's the latest, biggest scientific review, endorsed by a high court!

    PERIOD

    ReplyDelete